| Revision as of 01:36, 31 December 2021 editAchar Sva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,841 edits →Section "Date and place of birth"← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:15, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,657 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Nativity of Jesus/Archive 7) (bot |
| (46 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=1|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{vital article|topic=Philosophy|level=5|class=B}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Article history|action1=GAN |
|
{{Article history|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=20 November 2007 |
|
|action1date=20 November 2007 |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
|topic=philrelig |
|
|topic=philrelig |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Nativity of Jesus|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Holidays |class=B |importance=High |Christmas=yes |Christmas-importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Holidays|importance=High |Christmas=yes |Christmas-importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity |class=B |importance=High |christmas=yes |christmas-importance=Top |jesus-work-group=yes |jesus-importance=High |saints=no |saints-importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top |christmas=yes |christmas-importance=Top |jesus-work-group=yes |saints=no |saints-importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Visual arts |class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Visual arts}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
| Line 27: |
Line 28: |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Off topic warning}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Emmanuel or Jesus == |
|
|
|
|
|
Referring to these reverts: ], ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
In edit summary, I wrote {{tq|] and ] of Matt 1:21 both have "Jesus" not "Emmanuel". ] doesn't mention "Emmanuel" as a variant|quotes=y}}. To which ] replied {{tq|New revised Std or whateveer, Wycliffe, & most importantly for here, the Vulgate all have this|quotes=y}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The ''status quo ante'' version of this article had "Jesus, because he would save his people from their sins", which is straight from Matthew 1:21. Thanks to ] I now notice that in the next two verses, Matthew refers to Isiah's prophesy "spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, |
|
|
... they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us". |
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't a difference between Wycliffe & Vulgate ''vs''. King James &c. It's a difference between verse 23 and the rest of chapter 1. When the author of ''Matthew'' is writing in his own voice he consistently uses "Jesus" &/or "Christ" (verses 1, 16, 17, 18, 25); when relaying the words of the angel, he uses "Jesus" (v.21); when he paraphrases the prophesy (v.23), he uses "Emmanuel". |
|
|
|
|
|
* Wycliffe (], 1380s): "And she shal bere a sone, and thou shalt clepe his name <u>Jhesus</u>; for he schal make his puple saaf fro her synnes. ... that was seid of the Lord bi a prophete, seiynge, Lo! a virgyn shal haue in wombe, and she schal bere a sone, and thei schulen clepe his name <u>Emanuel</u>, that is to seie, God with vs." |
|
|
* Vulgate () "{{lang|la|Pariet autem filium: et vocabis nomen ejus <u>Jesum</u>: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. ... quod dictum est a Domino per prophetam dicentem: ... et vocabunt nomen ejus <u>Emmanuel</u> ...}}" |
|
|
* Greek (], Scrivener 1894): "{{lang|el| τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ <u>Ἰησοῦν</u>· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, Ἰδού, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ <u>Ἐμμανουήλ</u>, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Putting verses 20–25 all together, we have: the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, saying ... she shall bring forth a son, and <u>thou shalt</u> call his name Jesus ... this was to fulfill the Lord's word that a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and <u>they</u> shall call his name Emmanuel ... |
|
|
Then Joseph awoke ... did as the angel ... had bidden him, ... and he called his firstborn son Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
The current version is incorrect – {{tq|an angel told him in a dream that he should take Mary as his wife and name the child Emmanuel}}. The angel instructs Joseph to name his son Jesus, not Emmanuel. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have a wording in mind for this sentence which reflects the actual contents of Matthew, using context to take some interpretive liberty with the literal "{{lang|el|ὄνομα}} / {{lang|la|nomen}}". If someone doesn't like it and reverts, then you all can have at it. ⁓ ] ( ] ) 18:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, make sure you ''reference it properly''. I'm not actually sure the point is necessary in this article, so maybe we should just trim the well-known account. ] (]) 19:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:(ec) {{Done}} ]. With respect to the structure of the article, mentioning the prophesy at § Gospel of Matthew prepares the reader for discussion of Isiah at § Old Testament parallels. ⁓ ] ( ] ) 19:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Matt 1:21 in the Greek reads "Ἰησοῦν" (transliterated as iEsoun). Yes, the KJV and all other modern translations read Jesus in verse 21, but Emmanuel (Ἐμμανουήλ) is used in when referring back to Isaiah, which is quoted in verse 23. See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A21-23&version=AKJV;SBLGNT;THGNT;NASB;NIV to compare. ] (]) 19:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for the side-by-side comparison, ], that's very handy. How do you feel about the extra sentence that I added? ⁓ ] ( ] ) 20:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Yes, it was a great addition. ] (]) 23:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::The para in question is a straight paraphrase of Matt. 1:18–25 in Misplaced Pages's voice, so external reference isn't really applicable. I agree with you about keeping it trim and simple, ]. On the other hand, the reader now has a chance to click/tap through to ], and mentioning the prophesy ties in to discussion in a later section. Also, from what I've read here and in related articles, Matthew seems to have originated this use of "Emmanuel", so it's noteworthy. On balance I feel it's worth keeping the extra sentence. <small>(I'm ambivalent about the wording "the son would be known as Emmanuel" vs. "the son would be called Emmanuel", but my intention was to avoid "they will name him" which has different connotations in English that might not apply in the original Greek.)</small> ⁓ ] ( ] ) 20:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The Wikilink is helpful. ] (]) 23:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== Scope == |
|
|
|
|
|
"when Jesus was twelve years old they found him in the Temple listening to the teachers and asking questions so that "all who heard him were amazed". His mother rebuked him for causing them anxiety, because his family had not known where he was, but he answered that he was in his Father's house. "Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them, but his mother treasured all these things in her heart, and Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." No doubt, but is something that happened when Jesus was 12 years old part of his nativity? ] (]) 21:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:No. ] (]) 16:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Copyright problem removed == |
|
|
|
|
|
] Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%201:1%E2%80%9325&version=nrsv. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.) |
|
|
|
|
|
For ], we cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', and, if allowed under ], may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and ] properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' ] from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations '''very seriously''', and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> ] (]) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
three subsections that were taken directly from the cited webpages , with very light trimming and paraphrasing. Those web pages clearly explain they are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. {{pb}}They were also out of scope for an article concerned specifically with the nativity. ] (]) 17:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
: Thank you. ] (]) 23:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I never realised that the Bible is copyrighted. Surely there is only one Bible? Surely every website that publishes the Bible is itself copying another source? Do all the different Bible online "sources" all paraphrase the material themselves? Is it perhaps just this particular website that we cannot quote? Are there "other" Bibles that can be quoted under "open source" rules please? I am very confused - please assist? ] (]) 12:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Broadlly speaking, every new translation is a work of "skill, labour, and judgment" (to borrow a UK phrase) and qualifies for copyright. That's true of translations of Luke's Gospel and of Homer's Odyssey. An old translation like the King James will usually be out of copyright, but a new edition of an old translation might not be; for example, David Daniell's modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament qualifies for copyright. (Indeed, even without translation, new scholarly editions of ancient texts can qualify for copyright when by meticulous scholarship they correct copying errors that have crept in over the centuries.) Of course, this shouldn't impel us to start pasting in blocks of the King James into articles such as this; even if it was a perfect and neutral translation, its seventeenth-century English can be obscure or misleading to modern readers. Instead, just as with other texts, we describe it. ] (]) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Understood, thank you. ] (]) 14:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: King James, American Standard Version and others are out of copyright, but most modern translations are not. ] (]) 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The table at ] (no doubt not complete) lists several, but the situation re the ("King James") ] is actually not that simple - but quotations of the length Misplaced Pages articles need are not an issue. ] (]) 21:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
], would this issue be resolved if there were a note saying "summarised from XXXX translation"?] (]) 22:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's rather the point. We shouldn't simply copy-paste a translation, lightly paraphrase it or present a trimmed version. We should summarise that part of the gospel, which is to say describe what it says, and that's best done by not relying solely on any one translation (though any standard translation could then serve as a citation). The current section on Matthew is a little better but needs work. |
|
|
:We also need to be clear about our scope. This article is specifically about the nativity. In many churches, readings during Advent and at Christmas include other material such as the birth of John the Baptist and what Jesus did when he was twelve. That's part of many people's Christmases but it's not part of the nativity. ] (]) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Section "Date and place of birth" == |
|
|
|
|
|
]: I thought youre reversion of my version of the section was an error because in your edit summary yuo referred specifically to the subheaders I introduced in the "summary" section and didn't mention this section. I don't believe I've introduced very much that is new, simply simplified what's already there and checked out sources. I'll paste my version below, breaking it down into sentences, and perhaps you could show me what you think can't (or can) stand: |
|
|
|
|
|
First para (my version) |
|
|
*Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but Matthew implies that Joseph has his home there, while Luke states that he lived in Nazareth and made the journey to Bethlehem in obedience to the census decree.{{sfn|Robinson|1999|p=111}} |
|
|
*In Luke the newborn Jesus is placed in a ] "because there was no place for them in the inn", or {{transl|grc|kataluma}}. *"Kataluma" may be translated as a private house, (although most scholars do not accept this interpretation), a small room, or an inn, but any case Luke excludes it as the place where Jesus was born, or at least where the baby was laid.{{sfn|Brown|1997|p=400-401}} |
|
|
*Luke in fact does not say precisely where Jesus was born, but by the 2nd century a tradition had grown up that it took place in a cave outside the town (the tradition is found in ] and the ], both from the middle to second half of the century).{{sfn|Brown|1997|p=401}} |
|
|
*], who travelled throughout Palestine around 215, wrote of the "manger of Jesus",<ref>''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'' 2000 {{ISBN|90-5356-503-5}} p. 173</ref> and in 325 ] built the ] over a series of caves including the cave-manger site traditionally venerated as the birthplace of Jesus.{{sfn|Taylor|p=99-100}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== C.R.S == |
|
Second para |
|
|
*Luke dates the birth to the year of the census of Quirinius, which took place in 6 CE, but as it also places it "in the days of ]", who died ten years earlier in 4 BCE, most scholars acknowledge that Luke has misdated the event.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|p=111}}{{sfn|Brown|1978|p=17}} |
|
|
*The majority of scholars assume that Jesus was born before the death of Herod, perhaps between 6 BC and 4 BC based on the information in Matthew 2:16 and by counting backwards from the information given in Luke 3:23 that he was about thirty years old in the fifteenth year of the emperor ].{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=312}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The para about Islam is unchanged.] (]) 01:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
Narrate the birth of Jesus ] (]) 15:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
: It is not my version. Two other editors got it the way it is now. Talk to them. ] (]) 01:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: No, it's my version. What I'm asking is why you feel it's worse than the existing version. ] (]) 02:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I am not making a quality judgment, but I see this going back-and-forth so the three of you should come to a common ground. ] (]) 02:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== When was The Adoration of the Shepherds painted? == |
|
::::For the Date and Place of birth section, I agree that any details in your version which are not already in the article, should be added. Some copy-editing will then probably be required too. |
|
|
|
In the Misplaced Pages article the painting is dated 1632, in Wikimedia Commons the date appears as c. 1650. I cannot find enough evidence for the most correct date, but I do not think there should be a difference between the two sources, yes? ] (]) 16:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Why does the "Matthew" section have sub-sub-headings? Surely this is not necessary? |
|
|
::::] (]) 12:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Changed to c. 1650 per the image file. ] (]) 02:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::I thought it would make it easier for the reader. If you disagree, feel free to remove them. ] (]) 20:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert == |
|
:In the article at present, the sentence beginning ""Kataluma" may be translated as either "inn" or "guestroom", and some scholars have speculated" is unsourced, leaving it looking terribly like ] complete with ]. Above you cite Brown 1997 for the kataluma speculation (do you mean Brown 1977?) and write "most scholars do not accept this interpretation". Does Brown make the speculation and/or say that some other named scholars don't accept it? Do you know of other scholars speculating likewise or rejecting such speculation? If it's Brown alone or almost alone, we should leave it out as ]. |
|
|
:Properly speaking, Luke doesn't date the nativity at all (no "in the year of" or suchlike). The census is part of his narrative, a part incompatible with his reference to Herod.or Matthew's. Some light copy-editing deals with that and "Luke has misdated the event" (eg that can become "Luke was in error"). |
|
|
:We shouldn't say "islam places" any more than we'd say of other events "Christianity places" or "Judaism places". Is it the Quran? Hadith? |
|
|
:I may have other comments, but I have to stop now and deal with a couple of other things. Broadly speaking, I do prefer your version. ] (]) 22:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::The piece on kataluma is sourced from Brown 1977 (for some reason my fingers keep wanting to move on two decades). ] (]) 01:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mainstream academic view is that the two birth narratives from the New Testament contradict each other. So much for accepting both as historical. See e.g. McClellan, Dan {{YouTube|2bHk2Bazxok|On contradictions between Matthew & Luke’s nativities}}. ] (]) 01:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Lead and lists of agreements/disagreements== |
|
|
], you asked in a recent edit summary, "Why is the lead listing the things that the gospels do agree on, but not listing the things where the gospel don't agree?" My brief answer would be that lists of either sort would take up too much space. The lead should simply say that the two agree on very little. (With source of course).] (]) 01:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
In the Misplaced Pages article the painting is dated 1632, in Wikimedia Commons the date appears as c. 1650. I cannot find enough evidence for the most correct date, but I do not think there should be a difference between the two sources, yes? Mieliestronk (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
